1 CGHC010035772021 2026:CGHC:42054-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 38 of 2021 Judgment Reserved On :16/09/2026 Judgment Delivered On :28/09/2026 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Bori, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus Dudheram Verma S/o. Narayan Verma Aged About 28 Years R/o. Village Chicha, Police Station Bori, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Amit Buxy, Deputy GA. For Respondent : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas & Hon'ble Shri Sudhir Kumar, JJ C A V Judgment The following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sudhir Kumar, J. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.09.29 11:00:32 +0530 2 1. This Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7th January, 2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg in ST No.98/2014 wherein the said Court had acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC by extending benefit of doubt. 2. As per the prosecution case, the deceased was the father of the respondent/accused. Deceased Narayan Verma and the accused were residing in the same house in Village Chicha. The brother of the deceased namely, Bhagiram Verma, was residing in a separate house in the same village. On 26 January 2014, in the morning, when Bhagiram Verma was standing near the grocery shop of Ubhay Verma, the private doctor of the village namely, Vinod Verma informed him that Narayan Verma had died. Thereupon, he went to the house of Narayan Verma and asked his nephew Dudheram (the accused) about the incident. The accused stated that he does not know anything about it. Thereafter Bhagiram Verma went inside the room and saw Narayan Verma lying dead on a cot in a prone position. The lower portion of his body was resting on the ground. There appeared to be an injury caused by a sharp- edged weapon near his right eye and beard, and blood was present on the cot and bedding. On the same day, i.e. 26 January 2014, at about 8:30 a.m., Bhagiram Verma (PW-7) went to Police Station Bori and gave information regarding the sudden and unnatural death of his brother Narayan, vide Ex. P-11. Thereafter, the First Information Report vide Ex.P-12 was registered. On the basis thereof, First Information Report 3 No.06/2014 was registered against an unknown person under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination vide Ex.P-13A to the District Hospital, Durg. Dr. N.C. Rai, Medical Officer (P.W. No.9), conducted the post-mortem examination and prepared the post-mortem report, vide Ex.P-13. In the said report, the cause of death was opined to be a fatal head injury. Memorandum of the accused was recorded vide Ex.-P/1, pursuant to which one Kutela was seized vide Ex.-P/1A. One full shirt of the accused having blood stains on the wrist of the right hand was also seized vide Ex.-P/18. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur vide Ex.-P/20 and after examination, FSL report (Ex.-P/22) was received, according to which blood stains found on the full shirt of the accused could not be examined, as the blood was disintegrated. However, the blood on Kutela was found to be having ‘A’ blood group. After investigation charge sheet was filed and after completion of trial, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused as mentioned above. 4. It was argued by learned counsel for the appellant/State that the evidence was not properly analyzed by the trial Court. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act has not been taken into consideration by the trial Court. The memorandum, seizure report, and FSL report have not been considered by the trial Court. In this case, the offence has been established based on circumstantial evidence. Based on the 4 aforementioned arguments, a prayer has been made to convict the respondent/accused and to allow the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused argued that the judgment of trial Court is proper and in accordance with the law, and no interference is required. The alleged offence against the respondent/accused has not been proved in any manner. In this case, the memorandum and seizure report has not been corroborated by an independent witness. The presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be drawn against the respondent/accused because the respondent/accused was not present at the scene of the occurrence on the date of the incident. Furthermore, motive has also not been substantiated/proved. Based on the aforementioned arguments, a request has been made to dismiss the appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 7. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding the point that the death of the deceased, Narayan, was homicidal in nature. MOTIVE 8. This case is not based on the testimony of an eyewitness but rather on circumstantial evidence. First of all, the underlying motive is being considered that Revaram Sahu (PW-2) admitted during his cross- examination that the deceased and the accused shared a good relationship and rapport, and that there had been no quarrel or altercation between them. No witness has made any statement regarding any kind of 5 altercation between the deceased and the accused. Therefore, it is evident that the motive is not established. 9. As regards presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, learned counsel appearing for the State has raised the plea that the accused and the deceased were together in the house at night. It is the burden of the accused, under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, to explain as to under what circumstances his father has died during the night. In this regard, the prosecution has examined Hem Singh Verma (PW-1) and Reva Ram Sahu (PW-2). Hem Singh Verma (PW-1) has stated that a Kabir Satsang was going on in the village on 25/01/2014; he was present there at the time, and the deceased, Narayan Verma, was also present. The Satsang concluded at 5 pm. He asked Narayan Verma (deceased) whether he had taken his meals or not; Narayan Verma replied that he would eat a little later. This witness has also stated that he had gone home at 8:00 pm. This witness made no statement to the effect that he had seen the deceased, Narayan Verma, and the accused together in their house. 10. Revaram Sahu (PW-2) has stated that on the evening of the 25th, he had gone to Narayan's house to sit. He had tea with Narayan. Thereafter he went to his home, while Narayan went to the Satsang. The next day, he came to know that Narayan had died. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Upon being declared hostile, this witness has admitted that on 25.01.2014 and 26.01.2014 apart from Narayan Verma and Dudhe Ram, no other person was present at the house of deceased. During cross-examination, this witness has accepted that he, Narayan, 6 and Shiv Verma were the three persons present at the deceased Narayan Verma's house on the evening of 25.01.2014. He and Shiv had left after having tea. During cross-examination, this witness has also stated that Dudhe Ram was present when they were having tea, and that Dudhe Ram left the spot after the deceased asked him to tie the bullock. It is crystal clear from the statement of this witness that the accused left the place while this witness and Shiv Verma were having tea. The statements of both the aforementioned witnesses do not in any way establish the fact that, on the night of the incident, the father and son namely, the deceased and the accused were together in the same house. If the fact is proved that the deceased and the accused were together in the same house on the night of the incident, the burden shifts on the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to explain as to how the incident occurred that night. In this case, it has not been proved that the accused and the deceased were together during the night. Therefore, the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act will not be attracted in this case. Memoradum and Seizure 11. Investigating Officer D.R. Gandharv (PW-11) has stated that, upon interrogation, the accused Dudhe Ram Verma revealed in the presence of witnesses that he had hidden the Cutlass/Kutela weapon used in the incident under the thatch of the shed in backyard of his house. This witness has also stated that, at the instance of the accused Dudhe Ram Verma, a Cutlass/Kutela was recovered from the thatched roof of the house and subsequently examined in the presence of witnesses. However, Hem Singh Verma (PW-1) did not support the case of 7 prosecution on any point other than the fact that he had signed the memorandum statement. Furthermore, the prosecution has not examined any other independent witness to the memorandum and the seizure. The memorandum of the accused and the seizure effected on the basis of that memorandum have not been proved by any independent witnesses. FSL report has been produced in the case. The FSL report has not substantiated the fact that the blood found on the Cutlass/Kutela matched with the blood of the deceased. 12. Furthermore, in the case at hand, motive has not been proved. It has also not been proved that the accused and the deceased were together in the same house on the night of the incident. The memorandum of the accused and the seizure of Kutela made pursuant thereto have also not been proved. 13. It is evident from the foregoing analysis that the evidence has been properly analyzed by the trial Court and the appellant has been acquitted; therefore, there is no ground to interfere in the acquittal judgment of trial Court. 14. In the result, the Appeal filed by the State fails and is hereby dismissed. 15. The original records of the trial Court be returned along with a copy of the judgment. Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) (Sudhir Kumar) Judge Judge Barve